EPA to Change Formula on Senior Citizens

Published 8:00 pm, Wednesday, May 7, 2003

The Environmental Protection Agency will stop valuing senior citizens' lives below those of younger people when calculating the costs of its regulations, the agency's chief said.

EPA Administrator Christie Whitman said the policy came from the White House Office of Management and Budget, and was never reviewed by her agency.

Derided by critics as a "senior death discount," the formula estimated the worth of someone over 70 at 37 percent less than a younger person _ $2.3 million instead of $3.7 million.

The age-adjusted analysis was used to explain the benefits of the Bush administration's Clear Skies pollution-reduction legislation to Congress.

Whitman announced the change unexpectedly Wednesday to a group gathered at the University of Maryland School of Nursing for the agency's sixth and final "listening session" for older Americans nationwide.

"That particular form of analysis has been discontinued," she said. "The bottom line is that the EPA will not use an age-adjusted analysis on any regulations that it promulgates."

Federal regulations often put a dollar cost on lives; the EPA uses the numbers to compare the benefits of particular rules against the cost to industry.

An official at the Office of Management and Budget said his agency is still committed to the principle of calculating how many years of life would be added by enacting a piece of legislation. John D. Graham, the OMB regulations administrator who has championed the policy, said the calculation no longer would be used because it was based on an old study.

The life-expectancy theory could boost the case for health measures that benefit children, Graham said. In some cases, the approach also could benefit senior citizens.

"It can distinguish a regulation that may extend senior citizens' life by five or 10 years, compared to a regulation that will extend their life by only one year," he said.

Opponents said the policy shortchanged seniors. Jo Reed, coordinator of federal affairs and consumer issues for the AARP, argued that placing less value on seniors could weaken efforts to win money for cancer research and other programs for the elderly.

"You end up skewing the results of any analysis you do so that they favor inaction," she said.